One big clue to the pope’s thinking came in his 1997 book, titled “Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977” and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.
…
But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a “real improvement” in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.
In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old “low Mass,” with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, “was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people” when it disappeared.
The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.
With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope’s new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.
Link:
Tridentine Mass: Pope looks for bridge to tradition
A statement from the Vatican press office confirms the meeting B16 had with various bishops on the Tridentine rite Mass:
"The publication of the document — which will be accompanied by an extensive personal letter from the Holy Father to individual bishops — is expected within a few days, when the document itself will be sent to all the bishops with an indication for its implementation," the statement said.
It starts a year from now. (Sorry for the boo-boo. Misread the date.)
Newsflash!
The Leaning Tower of Pisa has been straightened!
It’s true!
And not by the Evil Superman from Superman III!
Of course, they didn’t straighten it all the way, but they returned it to the angle it was leaning at in 1838.
Why?
EXCERPT:
[British rescue committee engineering] Prof Burland said it could have collapsed "at any moment". However, it took nine years of bureaucratic wrangling before any work was done. "That was the difficult bit, getting the work going," Prof Burland said.
Yeah, big surprise on that last part. Italy.
Oh, and the Italian estimate of when it would have collapsed differed:
"If we had not stepped in the tower would have collapsed between 2030 and 2040," said Salvatore Settis, the president of the committee. "This is crucial for the tower’s stability and it was a totally Italian success."
Uhh . . . except for that British guy who worked on the project.
Oh, and there was a particularly tense moment:
Before the digging started, the tower was anchored with steel cables and 600 tonnes of lead weights.
However, halfway through the project, concerns at the ugliness of the weights led to their removal and the tower lurched dramatically. "In one night, the tower moved more than it had averaged in an entire year," said Prof Burland. The weights were hastily reattached.
Good idea!
Word on the street is that B16 will release the moto proprio on the Tridentine rite of Mass on 7/7/07–so just nine days from now.
I’d very much like to have the motu proprio released then–or sooner–but even though I’m not from Missouri, I’ll believe it when I see it.
POPE BENEDICT XVI HAS JUST RELEASED HIS NEW MOTU PROPRIO!!! WOO-HOO!!!
AND HE’S TURNED BACK THE CLOCK!!!
In it, he orders the Church to revert to a traditional practice that had been changed in the years following Vatican II! And it’s not just an "if the bishop doesn’t object" reversal! It’s a complete and total reversal!
The only thing is . . .
It doesn’t concern the Mass.
It’s not that motu proprio. It’s a different one.
What it does deal with is how the next pope will be elected. In times past, the election of a new pope required a supermajority of the cardinals to agree on the new pontiff, but John Paul II changed that so that–if they were unable to agree after an extended period of time–only a simple majority would do.
That innovation was introduced, no doubt, because of concerns John Paul II had about the amount of polarization in the Church and the difficulties this might conceivably create in getting to the required supermajority.
But B16 apparently feels that getting the buy-in of more than half of the cardinals is more important.
In fact, it may motivate deeper scrutiny on the part of the cardinals of what the Church really needs. It will prevent a bare majority of the cardinals from knowing that they can just run out the clock and get who they would like. By forcing the supermajority the cardinals will be forced to think through who really can best govern the Church given the differing viewpoints of the cardinals.
And it prevents any future pope from being confronted with a George Bush-like situation where he wins in a squeaker election and is then permanently hobbled by resentment and debates and perhaps even doubts (due to the secrecy of the conclave) over the legitimacy of the election.
What do I think of the change?
I don’t know. I haven’t yet read an English version of the document, and I’ve only skimmed in it Latin, so at this point I don’t have a strong opinion. It’s also a decision I’m glad I don’t have to make.
John Allen’s book on Opus Dei actually came out a while ago, but the publisher just sent me a review copy.
I was pleased to get it because I like John Allen’s journalistic work, and I’d trust him more than most writers to handle the subject in an informed manner that is fair–neither uncritical nor overcritical.
I look forward to reading it. (When I can find the time!)
In the meanwhile,
GET THE BOOK.
Canonist Ed Peters points out two extraordinarily important facts regarding the Kennedy-Rausch annulment case that I hadn’t been aware of. If press accounts are accurate then . . .
1) The Rota was serving as a court of second instance.
This is an extraordinarily important fact. Here’s why: When an annulment case is handled by a tribunal and a finding of nullity is reached, it is automatically transmitted to an appellate tribunal (a court of second instance) for its evaluation. Only if the appellate tribunal agrees is the person free to marry in the Church.
This means that what is popularly known as "an annulment" (that’s a colloquial designation) actually consists of two separate findings of nullity by two separate tribunals.
Normally the appellate tribunal that hears the case in second instance in an American annulment case is also in America, but it’s possible to appeal directly to the Rota, which is apparently what Sheila Rausch-Kennedy did in this case.
This means that Joseph Kennedy never had "an annulment."He never got the second finding of nullity from the appellate tribunal.
It is not the case–as I had supposed–that Kennedy received "an annulment" (findings of nullity from both the courts of first and second instance) and then the Rota got involved (as a court of third instance) and overturned the annulment. There never was an annulment because the second finding of nullity had not come in.
2) The Rota sat on this case for TEN YEARS.
That’s a QUADRUPLE HUH????
The Boston archdiocese tribunal apparently issued its finding of nullity in 1997 and the case has been stuck in the Rota ever since!
This is simply appalling.
John Paul II twice in his annual addresses to the Rota scolded them about not processing cases in a timely manner.
In his 1984 address, after the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, he stressed:
In the reform of canonical procedural law, an effort was made to meet a very frequent criticism, which was not completely without foundation, concerning the slowness and excessive length of trials. Therefore, accepting a deeply felt need, without wishing to impair or in the slightest way to diminish the necessary guarantees offered by the course and formalities of tribunal procedure, [the new law] has sought to render the administration of justice more flexible and functional by simplifying procedures, speeding up formalities, shortening the time-limits, increasing the discretionary powers of the judge, etc.
This effort must not be rendered vain by delaying tactics or by a lack of care in studying cases, by an attitude of inertia that is wary of entering the new track for moving ahead, by a lack of expertise in applying the procedures.
We then turn to the 1983 Code and find that it provides that:
Can. 1453 Without prejudice to justice, judges and tribunals are to take care that all cases are completed as soon as possible and that in a tribunal of first instance they are not prolonged beyond a year and in a tribunal of second instance beyond six months.
Got that?
Tribunals of second instance are supposed to process cases in six months barring special circumstances that would interfere with the execution of justice. Yet the Rota sits on this thing for ten years! Further, if what Time said is accurate then even after it reached the finding, it still took two years to draft the statement announcing its finding.
Circumstances in which justice would require this kind of delay are almost unimaginable. On its face the situation appears to be one of gross negligence on the part of the Rota.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and on the face of it, the Rota denied justice to Kennedy and Rausch for years by taking twenty times longer than the law specifies to process their case.
Now, maybe there are facts that we aren’t aware of that would show that justice required this astonishingly slow pace, but (by definition) it would be astonishing if there were.
In his 1996 Rotal address, John Paul II spoke of the need to resolve the question of what a person’s marital status is (are they validly married or not?) in a timely manner, stating in part:
At the same time, however, the current legislation of the Church shows a deep sensitivity to the requirement that the status of persons—if called into question—does not remain in doubt for very long.
The current legislation of the Church may show that deep sensitivity, but in this case–on the face of it–the Rota did not.
And sadly, this is all too often the case–in tribunals around the world. A friend of mine has a relative who has been vainly trying for years to get a Mexican tribunal to take action regarding an annulment case concerning a marriage that was contracted in Mexico, yet the person has been unable to get the tribunal to do anything at all.
If you want know why America has so many annulments compared to other countries, a significant part of the reason (you’ll note I said "part") is that it has a tribunal system that actually processes cases in something like the time limits specified in the law instead of letting them sit for years without resolution or refusing to even take action on the case.
John has been warned repeatedly about hobby-horseism but recently posted a comment on the Spanish television set entry that was guaranteed to spin it off into a discussion about Latin and bishops and traditionalism. He is now given his last chance to avoid disinvitation to participate in the blog. If he doesn’t keep discussions of Latin, the bishops, and traditionalism to entries dealing with those subjects, he’s gone.
I’m also announcing the creation of two new entries in DA RULZ:
21. Commenters in the combox are to use either their real name or a
(non-offensive, non-spiteful) handle that distinguishes them from
others when posting comments. They are not to post comments while
leaving the "Name" field blank. It’s rude to expect people to interact
with you and give them no way to refer to you.22. When someone is
under a warning not to ride his hobby horse, others on the blog are not
to post comments tempting him to get back on the hobby horse (e.g., "I
wonder what So-and-so will do to twist this thread onto his favorite
topic"). That’s rude because it tempts another person to break a rule
when he already may have trouble restraining himself on a particular
topic.
Last time I gave John a warning, he asked that others not taunt him in this way, and I agree with that sentiment. I’ve seen people under a hobby-horse warning get goaded into breaking the restriction, and it’s not fair to them.
Okay, the folks at Time Magazine have once again demonstrated their incompetence.
CHT to the reader who e-mailed asking confirmation of the fact that the Church does not "de-sanctify" marriages.
It doesn’t.
Time doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
What it does do is sometimes declare them null from the beginning. Hence: an-nul-ment.
Saying something was null from the beginning is not the same as stripping it of sanctity. It has to be there before you can remove its sanctity. No thing, no sanctity.
Oh, and the correct word for removing the sanctityof a thing would be desecrate or deconsecrate, not "de-sanctify."
But the stupid stuff in the story doesn’t stop there! Oh, no! That would be too easy!
EXCERPTS:
The annulment was the subject of Rauch’s 1997 book Shattered Faith, which lambasted her ex-husband and was severely critical of the Catholic Church’s proceedings, which made the marriage (which had produced twin boys) null and void in the eyes of the church.
How many children a union produced has nothing to do with whether the marriage was validly contracted on the wedding day. Time is presenting criticism of the concept without presenting the rejoinder.
Rauch argued that Kennedy was able to unilaterally "cancel" nearly 12 years of marriage because of his clan’s influence in the church.
How long a union lasts has no direct bearing on whether it was validly contracted on the wedding day. Same problem as before, and petitioners cannot "unilaterally cancel" anything. Both parties are given the opportunity to provide evidence, and it’s the tribunal that makes the decision.
Few observers thought the appeal to Rome by Rauch, an Episcopalian, had a chance against the well-connected Kennedy.
Time needs better observers. First, the fact Rauch is an Episcopalian is not going to have a material impact on the decision, and Kennedy’s connections–whatever they may be in Massachusetts–are not going to be decisive in Rome.
With divorce strictly prohibited in Catholicism, annulments allow Catholics to remarry before a priest and continue receiving the sacraments.
Civil divorce is not "strictly prohibited in Catholicism." Civil divorce can be legitimate for any number of reasons. What you can’t do is get remarried just because you have a civil divorce.
Several years after his 1991 civil divorce to Rauch, Kennedy obtained an annulment from a Church tribunal in Massachusetts so he could have a Church ceremony with Kelly. The couple had already been married in a 1993 civil ceremony, but needed the Roma Rota appeals tribunal at the Vatican to uphold the Massachusetts annulment verdict before they could be married by a priest.
The Rota does not weigh in on each and every finding of nullity in the world. It’s agreement isn’t necessary unless one of the parties appeals to it. (Oh, and you don’t have to be married by a priest in order to observe the Catholic form of marriage.)
At the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI has indicated that he wants to streamline the Roma Rota to respond to the desire of divorced Catholics to stay inside the Church.
Huh? When did he do that? He’s never made any statements about streamlining the Rota. On the contrary, he’s stressed that tribunals around the world should follow the detailed instructions of Dignitas Connubii.
But there is also concern that some Catholics, particularly in the U.S., abuse the practice. "People think it’s their right," says one Rome-based canon lawyer. He adds sternly, "It’s not a right."
Double huh? It’s not individual Catholics who "abuse the practice" of granting annulments. Only Church tribunals can grant annulments. If there is a generalizable problem (and this is something that is quite arguable) with the annulments being granted then the fault lays with the tribunals granting them, not simply the people asking to have the validity of their marriages examined.
The story also refers to multiple unnamed "sources," meaning that there is a shadow of doubt over the whole thing.
It also says this:
The Roma Rota’s ruling, written in Latin, was reached in 2005, and had
been kept secret while the official written notice was being prepared,
said a source in Rome familiar with the case.
We can’t know if this is true since the source is unnamed, but if it is: Triple huh? What’s something like this doing sitting on someone’s desk for two years? It doesn’t take that long to prepare a written notice!
While Time Magazine has demonstrated what it doesn’t know about this case, Ed Peters has some sage advice to remember what we all don’t know about it.
GET THE STORY.
There’s an episode of I, Claudius titled "Some Justice," in which a trial is held in the Senate to bring to justice those responsible for the death of Claudius’s brother, Germanicus.
The machinations of Roman politics being what they are . . . er, were . . . in the end only "some justice" is done.
That episode came to mind as I read
One EXCERPT:
Mr. Freedman said Mr. Nifong, 56, a prosecutor for nearly 29 years, would have never risked his law license and career on hiding DNA evidence that he knew the defense would find.
F. Lane Williamson, chairman of the ethics panel, responded that “there is no rational explanation sometimes” for unethical or illegal behavior. “I don’t know if we’ll ever know,” he said.
Actually, Thomas Sowell doesn’t think that Nifong’s actions were at all inexplicable. He thinks there is a perfectly clear and logical, if evil, reason for them.